The initial reports I heard were that the underwear was found lying in the corner of the room--again implying that the sexual assault took place in Danielle's room. I haven't yet had the time to read through all of the posts on this forum, so I don't know if this has already been hashed and rehashed.
It is difficult enough to believe that DW was able to enter the house undetected, steal Danielle from her room, and exit the house undetected with two other children and the father nearby. Adding the notion that DW also sexually assaulted her--well, it just makes it pertnear impossible IMHO.
1. The officer was confused about where the underwear came from. The collecting officer was Dorrie ?, the conclusion was that (don't flame me here)men would make that mistake and not know the difference between in the dresser and near the dresser, not women, they would remember where they found it.
2. That the perp sexually assaulted her and hid the underwear in the drawer because somebody was coming.
The officer testified under oath about them being found inside the dresser drawer. They have not determined if she was sexually assaulted or not. That, IMO, is why it is so important to keep the "illegal child porn" story alive, legs intact, and the judge either helped it along, or really didn't think it was worth 2 days in court over. Who knows, my mind reading skills aren't what they used to be, heck sometimes I can't even read my own mind.
What Brenda, in the morning when she rushes to Danielle's room to search for her, finds the underwear on the floor, and in a rush, picks them up and sticks them in the drawer.
Maybe she did it to try and hide something, maybe she did it out of reflex, thinking other people might be going through Danielle's room, and she didn't want her underwear just lying on the floor.